PC Dead in Australia?

It may simply be that we have all confused our symantic labels with reality. (once again)
Reality is multi-dimensional and nowhere even close to black and white.

The Boston Tea Party, by definition, was an act of terrorism.
Does that make it an evil act by cowards?
No.

Symantics and politics.

Now, random killing of civilians in the hope of creating fear IS evil.

However, let us never forget that our country WAS founded by men who were willing to KILL and to DIE for their beliefs. They fought a guerilla (which could be considered terrorist) war against a larger military force and won.

Is it crazy, nut-job, right-wing or whatever, to consider overthrowing our government by force of arms because we believe it has become an aristocratic evil tyranny that no longer acts in the name of the people, in the name of democracy?

No.

Thats the purpose of the first and second and third amendments. To help us fight our own government someday.

Never let the media convince you that your own constitution does not say what it actually says.

Read it!
Take part.
Call your congressman.
Run for office.
Repeal stupid laws.

True democracy requires effort by all and constant vigilance.
 
OK, I'm officially confused. Seriously. I thought that "terrorism" is something perpetuated against civilians, ie non-combatants?!? I keep hearing it tossed about in this thread to refer to actions against military personel---isn't that simply an attack?

If we extend the definition of terrorism to include actions against military personel then things get a liitle tricky. Hell, even with the civilian only definition you run into trouble. After all any "collateral Damage" that harms civilians could be dubbed terrorism.

It's funny it's like the old pornography quote "I know it when I see it" . I know 9/11 was terrorism, but sometimes it gets tricky....:confused:
 
Considering the state of the world today I think its a good thing . I am very much for freedom of religion . This seems more to state if you wish to practice your religion in a non-violent manner you are welcome to stay . If you don,t like that idea what did you move there for in the first place ? Good for the Aussies .
 
munk said:
Aproy1101,

The Koran is not a violent book. It does not teach murder. I have a copy of it in my bedroom, just to answer dialogues like this one. (and because I was curious.) It is not really accurate to judge the vast majority of Moslems on the actions of what historically is a small group of people fomented in a single generation, any more then it would be accurate to sweep Christians up with a broad hangin' brush that they're bigots and for torture because of the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...

I think the dangerous idea here is that while Christians, by and large, do not deserve the label of bigot or torturer now, they did during many points of the Middle Ages, and this most definitely had something to do with the religion at the time. Similarly, Islam is now going through its own violent phase, and while the phenomenon is not limited entirely to Islam- most Muslims are not terrorists, it should be noted that most terrorists are Muslims, and it is a religious problem.

It is not a fundamental problem with the religion of Islam any more than the Spanish Inquisition was a fundamental problem with the religion of Christianity. It is simply how it is interpreted at the time, in what ways, what was left out, what was slightly altered. It is a religious issue as well as a social and political one, and pretending it is not a religious issue may prove dangerous in the long run, as comforting as it might be to assume religion is never at fault.

munk said:
Aproy- it's extremes. It always has been. Wahhabi has gone 'mainstream' with the help of a sympathetic zany European/Western culture and Press. And the prodding of more than a few Royal Middle Eastern Families who fed young people a diet of Bad USA to keep their minds off of hunger and want that the Royal families had a lot to do with.
Click to expand...

The House of Saud is an interesting case in point here- most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and most of al-Qaeda's funding and much of worldwide Islamic terrorist funding comes from Saudi accounts- the massive Saudi royal family has been struggling to keep their house of cards together by playing both sides. In their defense, most of them have picked one side or the other, but the fact that Saud is divided is enough to create the issues we see today.

DannyinJapan said:
It may simply be that we have all confused our symantic labels with reality. (once again)
Reality is multi-dimensional and nowhere even close to black and white.

The Boston Tea Party, by definition, was an act of terrorism.
Does that make it an evil act by cowards?
No.

Symantics and politics.

Now, random killing of civilians in the hope of creating fear IS evil.
Click to expand...

The technically accepted definition of terrorism is any action intended to kill or seriously harm civilians or noncombatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling action by a government or international organization. That's a UN definition according to the Security Council, and if the French, Russians, Chinese, and the Americans can agree on it, it must be a pretty good definition.

By that standard, while terrorism occurred on both sides during the American Revolutionary War, the Boston Tea Party in particular would not be a terrorist act, but a criminal act of vandalism.
 
Murder is not a religious issue, nor should it be treated as such.
Strong belief systems always provide the excuse needed for antisocial or criminal behavior. Take the word 'religion' out, and the observations of the psychology of murder and character disorder are the same.
The "Monkey Wrench" Gang is not religious in the ordinary sense. Eco terrorism is a reality and is not Islamic or Christian. Have we forgotten the dead and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage? The Nazis were not 'religious," but they held a strong belief system and killed millions. How about our own SDS in the 1970's?

What percent of Islamic people are 'terrorists"? What percent of Americans are criminals or Eco terrorists?

Western European sympathy to Islamic grievances which scapegoat the US has worked in conjunction with despotic control of middle eastern peoples by Royal families and other ruling interests.

What is valid is terror has been encouraged. It is important to remember that mainstream teachings of the Koran and related religious texts are not violent- the violent offshoot is a formerly despised sect known as Wahhabism. They are still despised among the bulk of Moslems. Look at the people who volunteer for police and military duty after each bombing of recruits in Iraq; the 'terrorists' cannot keep them away. They are the face of Islam we should be encouraging, and they are the majority.

I do agree that Islam, that Moslems are at a crossroads of sorts.

Interesting discussion.

The answer is found in Iran's middle class. The 'answer' is capitalism and democracy.



munk
 
Getting back to the original thought behind this thread:

Australian police have arrested 15 suspected terrorists today, preventing what they believe was to be a major attack by foreign nationals opposed to Australia's support of actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Guess they weren't kidding about those original comments.:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top